952 F.3d 950
8th Cir.2020Background
- ICE arrested and detained Domingo Pacheco-Poo and the U.S. charged him with illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326). He was transferred to the U.S. Marshals Service and ICE filed a detainer.
- Pacheco-Poo moved for pretrial release; the government warned that the Marshal would transfer him to ICE (because of the detainer) if released and ICE could remove him.
- A magistrate ordered release; the district court denied the government’s motion to revoke; the Marshal then transferred Pacheco-Poo to ICE.
- Pacheco-Poo moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the Bail Reform Act (BRA) and Constitution prohibit simultaneous prosecution and removal; the district court denied dismissal.
- He pleaded guilty while preserving appeal rights, was sentenced to time served, and ICE removed him 11 days later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BRA precludes INA removal | BRA release order prevents removal; courts must choose between release or dismissal | BRA and INA coexist; no congressional intent to subordinate INA | BRA and INA coexist; BRA does not bar removal |
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3142(d) is the exclusive detention mechanism for non-citizens | §3142(d) preempts INA removal and is exclusive for non-citizen detention | §3142(d) applies to judicial officers and does not prohibit ICE removal; it only requires notice/ten-day window when certain findings are made | §3142(d) does not preclude removal and did not apply here (no §3142(d) findings) |
| Whether ICE violated 8 C.F.R. § 215.2(a) by removing while on pretrial release | Regulation forbids departure prejudicial to U.S. interests; removal during release violates that regulation | Regulation governs an alien’s departure, not immigration officials’ acts; removal did not violate the regulation | No regulatory violation: the regulation regulates aliens’ departure, not ICE conduct |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing and whether constitutional claims preserved | Needed an evidentiary hearing; constitutional violations (Fifth/Eighth) asserted | Movant never requested an evidentiary hearing and raised only statutory/regulatory claims; constitutional arguments were undeveloped | No abuse of discretion; hearing not requested; constitutional arguments waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (courts should harmonize coexisting statutes)
- United States v. Lett, 944 F.3d 467 (BRA and INA serve separate purposes and provide independent detention bases)
- United States v. Vasquez-Benitez, 919 F.3d 546 (Congress did not intend the BRA to displace the INA)
- United States v. Veloz-Alonso, 910 F.3d 266 (similar holding that BRA and INA do not conflict)
- United States v. Palmer, 917 F.3d 1035 (standard of review cited)
- United States v. Washington, 893 F.3d 1076 (standard of review cited)
- United States v. Stevenson, 727 F.3d 826 (requirements for when an evidentiary hearing is required)
- Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630 (issues not meaningfully argued are waived)